Fooling the Masses on ‘International Scrutiny’
| by Laksiri Fernando
(October
13, 2012, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) There is a new pattern of argument by
government spokesmen (no women!) denying the last Sunday (7 October) attack on
the Secretary to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Manjula Tilakaratne.
They in essence ask, ‘could the government be so foolish to indulge in such
attacks on the Judiciary when Sri Lanka is at the scrutiny of the UN Human
Rights Council?”
I
am positive that the ‘argument’ was collected from Mahinda Rajapaksa himself
who roamed around the corridors of the then Human Rights Commission (now
Council) in Geneva in early 1990s. Unfortunately this is not 1990s!
Geneva
Those
days several Latin American countries, particularly El Salvador, Guatemala and
Chile, were on the spotlight of the UNHRC, but abductions, disappearances and
other human rights violations nevertheless continued stealthily. The argument
on the part of the government spokespersons (there were women!) were the same:
‘are we so foolish to do these things when we are willingly under your
scrutiny, they argued.’ Even the human rights advocates who came from these
countries were perplexed at the beginning; more so were the human rights
observers from other countries including government representatives.
But
this was only a passing phase. Within few years, the speculation disappeared
and before that Mahinda Rajapaksa disappeared from Geneva. Human rights
research and investigations on those countries very clearly proved that the
governments and their various agencies were the real perpetrators of human
rights atrocities except where armed or terrorist organizations (like the LTTE)
were in existence.
Under
normal circumstances, when a country is under the international scrutiny it
works as a deterrent on government violations. This is largely the case in Sri
Lanka, after March 2012, when the UNHRC managed to pass a resolution against
the government (not necessarily against Sri Lanka). Suddenly the government
changed the tune. This sudden or abrupt change was quite suspicious considering
the whole ‘show-off’ and ‘browbeating’ that they demonstrated in Geneva. They
have agreed, as if wholeheartedly, for a ‘full body check’ from top to bottom.
As
they have ‘agreed’ they now believe that they can claim anything found
suspicious in the body (politic) as an ‘implantation’ or result of ‘conspiracy’
of other parties. This is fooling of masses on ‘international scrutiny.’ Without
insulting women, I may add that the pretended innocence of the government is
like the proverbial ‘virginity of the prostitute.’
Among
several government spokesmen who put forward this argument before the media; while
Keheliya Rambukwella badly mumbled; perhaps Wimal Weerawansa was the most
articulate on the argument, as usual. I am quoting from News 1st yesterday. He asked and argued,
“What is the benefit that the government can accrue
through this action when the UNHRC in Geneva is ready to blame the government even
on false accusations? It is like roping its own neck. Do you think the
government would do that when there is international scrutiny?”
Pre-empt Speculation
The
reasoning behind the argument or the behaviour behind ‘rogue’ governments usually
goes like follows.
(1)
When there are violations, international scrutiny can work as a deterrent. Yes.
(2)
When there is international scrutiny, even ‘rogue’ governments are careful not
to indulge in massive violations. Partly Yes.
(3)
When there is public or international assumption of deterrence, governments can
continue with selective violations (as strategically necessary) and claim
international scrutiny as defence. Mostly true.
Of
course, the same or similar reasoning can be employed by other parties to
discredit a government, rogue or not. But it is extremely unlikely that any
other political actor is in a position to indulge in such an action to
discredit presumably the ‘all powerful’ Rajapaksa government, with a massive
military and security apparatus today. For the opposition political parties, there
are so many political issues to utilize against the government, if they wish
to, rather than trying to discredit it through risky stage-managed assault or
abduction.
It
is true that irrespective of all these apparatchiks, the government has also
allowed cudu (drug) mafias and the underworld
to operate. Therefore, there can be a slight possibility that this kind of a
thing can be done by a private party. But can there be a motive for such a
private revenge-taking on the JSC Secretary? What the public know is what the
President revealed to the Media Heads at his meeting with them on 11 October
that there is a complaint from a ‘father of a female judge’ regarding what
amounts to sexual harassment. This is categorically denied by Tilakaratne.
Be
as it may, the complaint apparently was made in April, but no action was taken
until October by the President, properly directing it to the relevant
authorities to investigate the matter!
Of
course there can be a cynical theory that because of the above, or for some
other reason, the JSC Secretary himself hired thugs to assault him to blame the
government or any other. Didn’t a dubious Minister say that? Of course there
can be such a deceitful people in society, especially among politicians, but it
is difficult to imagine that such a person can survive in the judiciary for
long years whatever his other weaknesses. Tilakaratne was a High Court Judge
previously before becoming the Secretary to the JSC.
No
one can conclusively say who attacked the JSC Secretary on that Sunday. As Rev.
Maduluwawe Sobitha has said, there should be prompt action to arrest the
attackers and to conduct an impartial inquiry. There are many doubts that the
attempt was to abduct Manjula Tilakaratne and not merely to assault him.
There
is every reason to believe that the government is the prime suspect. They have
every strategic reason to attack the judiciary at this juncture. There is no
need to reiterate the events surrounding the pressure or the attacks on the
judiciary from the executive branch in recent times subsequent to the 18th
Amendment to the Constitution. If there is any impeachment necessary, it should
be against the President but not against the Chief Justice. There are clear
attempts to install ‘dictatorial authority and governance’ by doing away
completely with the independence of the judiciary. Motives are to safeguard
family rule, hoodwink minority rights, suppress dissent and pre-empt strikes
like FUTA. There is so much written on the subject.
Defend the Judiciary
In
a court of law when someone is accused of a crime, the person is ‘presumed
innocent until proven guilty.’ That should be the case when and if anybody is
arrested and accused of the said attack and assault.
But
in politics, the reasoning is different, and it should be different. Otherwise
democracy is in jeopardy. The exposure of attacks on democracy is an absolute
necessity of course on factual grounds. The accusation on the government on
this assault is a political accusation. It is a valid accusation on the reasons
given above. This does not mean that the government or the cabinet came to the
Hotel Road, Mount Lavinia, and assaulted Tilakaratne. But political
responsibility lies with the government and most likely the assault or the attempted
abduction was conducted on clear instructions from above.
The
assault is not merely on Manjula Tilakaratne but on the judiciary. The
judiciary is not merely one branch of government among the three (legislative,
executive and judiciary), but constitute a special position in safeguarding the
rule of law, adjudication of justice and fundamental rights of the people. All
these are under threat in Sri Lanka at present.
No
one would argue that the judiciary (or the legal profession in general) in Sri
Lanka is perfect or up to proper democratic expectations. There should be
judicial reforms, expeditious delivery of justice, more professionalism,
sensitivity to the ordinary people (not only to the rich!) and commitment
within itself for judiciary’s independence. There must have been politically
biased judgements in the past or bending over backwards to the political whims
of even the present regime. However, as the judiciary is under attack from
political goons at present, whatever the past weaknesses, the judiciary should
be unconditionally defended by the people and all sectors of the democratic
society. It is also an international duty.
 There is ...){kind=link}